Maybe the Beaker Folk did not really come out of Iberia originally, or at least not the ones who brought L21 to the British Isles.

It is a bit of a nightmare if the beakers are the key to understanding R1b1b2 or S116. One problem attached to another. There is a move to tearing up the old systems of categorising beakers and seeing most beakers as local developments and only one or two types as international (all over corded etc). There is a major lack of a large summary overview publication for beakers instead of local works. It seems to me that ideas are in major flux as radiocarbon dating ha contradicted old typologies and chronologies.

A neolithic farmer L21, while still possible with the confidence interval range, is much less likely, imo. The I-E/Celtic language thing being one of the biggest reasons.

If later R1b like P312+ and L21+ are primarily associated with the Beaker/Celtic languages distribution, then we also have to consider secondary movements of L21+ from of the same initial Beaker areas. For instance, some L21+ Angles from Denmark to already L21+ Eastern Britain thus adding layer upon layer of L21 the further west you go. Perhaps this might be why the variance in Ireland seemed highest at first. Different L21 haplotypes arriving and proliferating with each new migration or invasion causing the variance to rise and give a false impression of origin. Then, that gives rise to the 'Out of the Isles' hypothesis.

Problem is. from what I can see, the variance pattersn for S116* and L21 does not at all correspond with an out of Iberia beaker model.

Does the whole Beaker package appear to come out of Iberia? or is it just the pottery?

Mike-I have to be honest and say I do not know the current thinking. It has been a long time since anything overarching that covers the entire European beaker phenomenon has been published in an easily accessible source. I understand the RC dating has indicated that burials with beakers is earliest in Iberia with Portugal the earliest. I believe that this has been taken to mean beakers originiated there out of some sort of vague precursors. However, I have not read anything that takes each classic beaker trait and discusses precursors i.e. flexed inhumations, barbed and tanged arrowheads, archery kits etc etc. I have certainly not read any really convincing article that looks at each aspect of the classic beaker package and discusses its origins. One simple question I have is did barbed and tanged arrowheads and archery kits appear out of the blue in Iberia (as they did in Britain) or were there pre-beaker precursors there? Where were the precursors of each element? In Britain (but not really Ireland) there was a sudden appearance of a fairly coherent group of new traits and material objects that clearly came out of the blue compared to the immediately preceding grooved ware complex - inhumation, crouched position, barbed and tanged arrows, archery kit, beaker pots etc etc. How much of the beaker complex other than the pots have precursors in Iberia? If not in Iberia then where? Unfortunately pre-beaker late Neolithic Iberia is not the sort of thing that you can easily read up on in terms of the latest research. Jean is a very avid reader on the copper age and she may have some relevant stuff in her large collection of academic papers. I think she had been interested in some new version of the reflux theory with only the pots having an Iberian origin.

In the old Reflux Theory of Sangmeister the archery package showed up first in the Bohemian sites, and it is only the pottery style that is considered of Iberian origin, an evolution of local Neolithic pottery. In turn, I have to add that Portuguese Neolitihic is clearly of Eastern mediterranean origin and of a "Colonial" character, according to Joao Zilhao"This prediction is met in the archaeological record by the “enclave” nature of early Neolithic territories in littoral-central Portugal, which occupy areas previously uninhabited by late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. The latter continue to thrive in their own territories for some 500 years after initial Neolithic settlement (refs. 10 and 22; Fig. 6), but contrasts in material culture, economy, nutrition, and mortuary behavior remain unchanged throughout this period. Neolithic sites feature pottery, polished hand axes, and heat pretreatment of flint, which are absent altogether from the Mesolithic, as are domesticates. Neolithic skeletons feature isotopic signatures of a fully terrestrial , whereas Mesolithic ones indicate a 50% marine component. Neolithic people are buried in special-purpose collective funerary sites, whereas Mesolithic people are buried individually in habitation sites and have never been found carrying exclusively Neolithic body ornaments (tear-shaped Glycymeris beads, pierced red deer canines, and bone beads imitating them). The rapidity of the spread also indicates that long distance colonization events took place well before saturation levels were attained at the point of origin, suggesting that purely historical causes were in operation and that ultimate explanations for the phenomenon must lie within the specific features of antecedent processes triggering the expansion of agro-pastoral economies from their Middle Eastern core areas"

However, I have not read anything that takes each classic beaker trait and discusses precursors i.e. flexed inhumations, barbed and tanged arrowheads, archery kits etc etc. I have certainly not read any really convincing article that looks at each aspect of the classic beaker package and discusses its origins.

Ialem-Your quote is about the Cardial culture I think which was c. 5500BC. That is a long time before the beaker era - over 2500 years.

Yes, what I wanted to show is that Neolithic in Portugal has a clearly Eastern mediterranean origin, and the Bell Beaker pottery, according to Sangmeister, is a local evolution of Neolithic forms.The temporal lapse is not that large, Early Zambujal is around 3.000 BC, while Neolithic in Portugal is around 5.000 BC (Rocha da Gaivotas). Tes, still 2000 years, but it was the latest Neolithic forms from which Bell beaker would be derived

Yes, what I wanted to show is that Neolithic in Portugal has a clearly Eastern Nediterranean origin, and the Bell Beaker pottery, according to Sangmeister, is a local evolution of Neolithic forms.

He was wrong. It is possible to see an influence from the early Copper "copos" of Zambujal, but not from any predecessor in the local late Neolithic. Only by assuming that the early Copper Age in Iberia developed from the indigenous late Neolithic can one arrive at Bell Beaker as indigenous to Iberia, and even then it isn't fully convincing, as Sangmeister himself realised.

Quote

Edward Sangmeister proposed the so called Reflux Model of Bell Beaker origins and distribution. Typological studies done in many regions showed that not all Bell Beaker attributes were connected with Spain, one of the main problems being the fact that corded decoration was absent there. Sangmeister proposed that after the initial phase of Bell Beaker development and expansion from the Iberian Peninsula in the direction of central Europe, a second phase of development took place, this being the "reflux" or reverse flow of Bell Beakers back to the Iberian Peninsula in a new version that had been enriched by central European contributions. Sangmeister, like some of his contemporaries, was becoming aware that it was increasingly difficult to find a single region where Bell Beaker attributes originated.

Janusz Czebreszuk, Bell Beakers from West to East, From Pam Crabtree & Peter Bogucki (eds), Ancient Europe, 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: An Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World (2004)

Jean, if you can trace all BB characteristics to Yamnaya, then why we find in Iberia the characteristic dual step in BB graves, the older with only pottery, and the late ones with the full archery package?

I don't say that every single item in the BB package is exactly the same as in the Yamnaya package. What I see as the core of BB can be traced to Yamnaya i.e. the basic technological level (copper metallurgy, domesticated horses, animals used for traction and other secondary products), and the basic social structure (single grave and some degree of social differentiation.) Plus some specific items such as Lockenring and tanged daggers, and cord-impressed pottery.

The archery set is more specific to BB, but the wrist guards appear also in Cetina and the barbed-and-tanged arrowheads in Remedello. I'm still trying to work out the answer to Alan's question on the origin of the latter.

I don't say that every single item in the BB package is exactly the same as in the Yamnaya package. What I see as the core of BB can be traced to Yamnaya i.e. the basic technological level (copper metallurgy, domesticated horses, animals used for traction and other secondary products), and the basic social structure (single grave and some degree of social differentiation.) Plus some specific items such as Lockenring and tanged daggers, and cord-impressed pottery.

The archery set is more specific to BB, but the wrist guards appear also in Cetina and the barbed-and-tanged arrowheads in Remedello. I'm still trying to work out the answer to Alan's question on the origin of the latter.

But, as I said before, the one thing characteristic of Zambujal and missing in Yamnaya is the developed urban life.Another problem, the earliest BB graves in Iberia lack archery package, but the later Ciempozuelos group does display the full package to luxury. There is a gap that Sangmeister´s reflux theory explained very well, in fact because of that it was with a lot of resistance that Iberian archaeologists abandoned that theory for the Low Countries origin, (in a time in which C14 chronology seemed to favour it). Now that C14 datation seems to favour again an Iberian origin, Sangmeister could be resurrected.

But, as I said before, the one thing characteristic of Zambujal and missing in Yamnaya is the developed urban life.

And I have already pointed out that there were fortified sites which housed metal-workers in the Sintashta Culture. That is a direct parallel, in that both reflect people moving from the Yamnaya homeland to an area less secure for them, in order to find new metal deposits. The degree to which these were fully urban could be debated, but they are certainly different from anything within the Yamnaya Horizon.

Quote

There is a gap that Sangmeister´s reflux theory explained very well .... Now that C14 datation seems to favour again an Iberian origin, Sangmeister could be resurrected.

Not exactly, because knowledge has increased since the 1960s and 70s. But certain elements of his theory continue to make sense. The idea of styles travelling back and forth along the BB trade routes is incorporated in my own solution, and I have little doubt that it will feature in the great review of Bell Beaker that we can expect in a few years time.

But we are not about to return to a simple idea of the whole Bell Beaker culture originating in Iberia. The article from Harrison and Heyd makes that very clear. Harrison is an expert in Bell Beaker, and he clearly shows it to be derived from Yamnaya.

@ Alan. I think I may be working towards an answer to the barbed-and-tanged arrowheads. Or then again I may be on the wrong track entirely. The State Hermitage Museum has some arrowheads from the famous (gold-laden) Maikop burial mound. They are odd - seem to have a tang and a single barb.

And I have already pointed out that there were fortified sites which housed metal-workers in the Sintashta Culture. That is a direct parallel, in that both reflect people moving from the Yamnaya homeland to an area less secure for them, in order to find new metal deposits. The degree to which these were fully urban could be debated, but they are certainly different from anything within the Yamnaya Horizon.

Not exactly, because knowledge has increased since the 1960s and 70s. But certain elements of his theory continue to make sense. The idea of styles travelling back and forth along the BB trade routes is incorporated in my own solution, and I have little doubt that it will feature in the great review of Bell Beaker that we can expect in a few years time.

But we are not about to return to a simple idea of the whole Bell Beaker culture originating in Iberia. The article from Harrison and Heyd makes that very clear. Harrison is an expert in Bell Beaker, and he clearly shows it to be derived from Yamnaya.

Jean, you are reading in Harrison and Heyd more than they wrote. There are some problems to your ideas1) Chronology, Harrison dates Yamnaya expansion through the Balkans 2900-2700 BC, with some Yamnaya objects, like battle axes, arriving to France and Iberia around 2500 BC, however Los Millares/Zambujal were built around 2900-2800 BC using a conservative datation (that used by Harrison himself)2) Influence: Harrison never says BB is derived form Yamnaya, he speaks of indirect influence It is like squeezing a plastic bag of water, which bulges out wherever it can within the membrane; so, too, the demographic or economic pressure upon one region was transmitted indirectly to distant regions.3) Cultural Package: The early BB of Zambujal is Maritime (not corded), and more important, ii is developed in a culture of large megalithic collective tombs, not individual tombs.All this I think are unsurmountable obstacles against holding the idea of a direct migration of Yamnaya people all the way from the Steppes to Portugal to create there BB culture

Ialem - We seem to be repeating ourselves. I have already said that Harrison and Heyd do not postulate mass migration. Migration is my own contribution to the story. But they do derive Bell Beaker from Yamnaya culturally. This is not my addition to their work. We have been over this several times. I have pointed to specific pages in their massive and complex article. I don't propose to do this all over again. The whole point of their article is to explain the cultural continuity at Sion from Copper-Age Yamnaya-influenced stelae-carving people to Bell Beaker.

If you don't believe me, feel free to email Volker Heyd at Bristol University to ask for clarification. In fact I really urge you to do this, because am getting very tired of these accusations that I am misreading their article.

But there are a few clues in there, if you have the patience to fish them out.

Quote

a trans-European process of transformation that from 2900 BC on shatters the previous existing material, social and economical foundations. The reasons behind are complex and multi-dimensional. What certainly plays a considerable role is the intrusion of mobile Yamnaya-pastoralists from the steppes to the north and northeast of the Black Sea... an event that affects further wide-ranging changes. ...

1) Chronology, Harrison dates Yamnaya expansion through the Balkans 2900-2700 BC, with some Yamnaya objects, like battle axes, arriving to France and Iberia around 2500 BC, however Los Millares/Zambujal were built around 2900-2800 BC using a conservative datation ... (that used by Harrison himself)

I don't see a problem here. I visualise a fast-moving initial burst of prospecting, partly by sea, followed by consolidation over a longer period, as more people follow the pioneers.

Anthony is the expert on Yamnaya, and I have followed his dating of the main surge up the Danube from about 3,100 to about 2,800 BC. This surge was so slow-moving that it might be better to class it as an expansion of territory over centuries than a migration. But the break-away of the Stelae People that I postulate seems to have moved far more swiftly. So building Zambujal about 3000 BC fits.

Quote

3) Cultural Package: The early BB of Zambujal is Maritime (not corded)

When you say the early BB of Zambujal is Maritime, are you speaking of just the pottery itself, or are there other elements of the package that were born of Maritime (Caridial/Impressed Wares) ?

Maritime in a Bell Beaker context refers to a particular type of Bell Beaker pottery found quite widely across Western Europe and apparently spread by sea. It has nothing to do with Cardial Ware. Ialem was just making the point that the Maritime type is not cord-impressed.

All this I think are unsurmountable obstacles against holding the idea of a direct migration of Yamnaya people all the way from the Steppes to Portugal to create there BB culture

So the fact that the Conquistadors took to drinking chocolate (which noone in Spain had even heard of at the time) is an insurmountable obstacle to the belief that they came from Spain? :)

You make your point for a migration based on stelae, so the point of Zambujal using megalithic collective tombs instead of individual tombs is very relevant. BTW the Stelae of Southern Portugal are generally dated in the Late Bronze.You are right we keep repeating the same arguments because we are not convincing each other, but you have to admit that there is nowhere in the article an affirmation like "BB is derived from Yamnaya" only references to indirect influences.

Does the whole Beaker package appear to come out of Iberia? or is it just the pottery?

Just the pottery. The rest of the package is essentially Yamnaya. And so are the influences which shaped the Bell Beaker pottery. See Bell beaker ceramic origin

I think it is key to look at the whole package. This is akin to looking for haplotype STR signatures. One STR does not a cluster make. On the other hand a 5 of 6 or an 8 of 10 match with a signature is worth considering no doubt. The odds of a correct conclusion improve with multiple pieces of the puzzle fitting but we may never have all of the puzzle pieces.

Another logical aspect is to accept is that a new cultural package is not necessarily derived of just one preceding culture, in fact it is probably inter-cultural interaction that inspires the new (derived) culture.

Ialem - I will readily admit that the paper by Harrison and Heyd does not cater to a non-specialist readership. The closest they come to spelling out their meaning in a simple sentence is in the abstract. Even then I wasn't certain until I finally got around to reading the whole paper that they were definitely saying that BB derives (culturally) from Yamnaya. The core of their story is clothed in so many words that most people to whom I have recommended the paper have given up on it.

Nevertheless it is a seminal paper of great importance. Its brilliance lies in their reading of the many messages of the stelae at Sion and Aosta. They do spell out that the cultural/social break there comes not at the Copper Age/Bell Beaker divide, but within the Bell Beaker period. There was a shift in the direction of influence from the SW to the NE. This is an important clue to the politics of the Bell Beaker world. Here's how I interpret it:

Quote

Cultures ultimately recognised as Celtic developed around the head of the Danube. Power centres north of the Alps could control trade from the Mediterranean coming up the Rhone, and from the Adriatic coming through Alpine passes from the Po Valley. To judge by an abrupt change of orientation and new arrivals at Sion and Aosta, that control was exerted from c. 2,425 BC, at the expense of their distant cousins the Stelae People.